Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1887-09-30
THE BELL TELEPHONE SUIT DECIDED
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
lFrom the Baltimore Sun


A dispatch from Boston last
night says; In the suit of the
United States against the Ameri-
can Bell Telephone Company ct AL,
the opinion OF the court was re-
ceiyed to-day. 1t was written by
Judge Colt, who states that the
main purpose of the bill was to
cancel two patents granted to Bell
relating to the act Of transmitting
speech by electricity Oh the ground
that they were obtained Ivy fraud.
The bill contained numerous allie.
cations, the most important of
which were that Bell was not the
first inventor of the speaking tele-
phone; that Philip Refs, of Ger
many, and others had previous to
his invention perfected an appa.
ratus for transmission of speech by
electricity. The prayer of the bill
was that this court may decree
that said patents are and have been
since the date of sealing and de.
livery null and void; that they
were wrongiully procured TO be
issued by means OF fraud on the
part of Bell, and that the Ameri-
can Bell Telephone Company may
be peTpetually eDjoined from set
ting up any right or claim under
said letters patent. The Bell Com
pany demurred to the bill. The
court says: 1.-The first and prin-
cipal question raised by this de.
murrer is whether in the absence Of
any specific statute the United
States, by direction of the Attor-
ney.General, can maintain a bill IN
equity to cancel a patent for an
invention. The question is by no
means free from difficulty, and the
decision of the courts in the few
cases where the point has been
raised are conflicting. Upon con-
sideration we are of the opinion
that the carefully. considered de
cision of Judge Shiplev, of this
circuit, in AttOrney-General VS..
Stamford Chemical Works, Ban
nard and Adolphus, 29S,) to the
effect that the government, in the
absence of any express statement,
has no power to bring a bill in
equity to cancel patent, is sound
and should be followed by this
court in this case. Our whole
patent system rests upon a con-
stitutiOnal provision and the stat.
utes passed by Congress-
The judge then proceeded to a
careful examination of the cOnsti.
tuition and acts of Congress, and to
the decision of cases bearing upon
such acts and articles of the constr
tuition. and arrives at the conclusion
that Congress could have provided
that the government sh0nld have
the right to bring suit to cancel a
patent for an invention on the
ground of fraud, but Congress has
not seen fit to incorporate such
provision into the patent laws, and
that is sufficient answer to this bill.
We think, therefore, that the his
tory OF patent legislation under the
constitution tends TO show that
Congress never intended this pow
er to be exercised under the pres.
ent law" He further says that if
the power of the government to
cancel a patent for an invention
exists, it must be by implication,
and must spring from the general
principles of equity jurisprudence,
and he here discusses the history
aud character Of this power and the
pro ,edure under it in England
The power to cancel patent in
England, be states, was in the ma
ture of a royal prerOgative, and the
proceeding was by writ of Scirc
fdcids. After going into an elabo-
rate discussion of the authorities
cited by counsel, he concludes as
follows: "The main grounds on
which The validity of the Bell pat
ents are attacked in this bill can be
raised in an infringement suit
brought under section 1920 OF the
Revised Statutes Of the United
States. The necessity which might
possibly arise in some cases for the
exercise of this power By the gov
ernment seems to be wanting in
this case. The question Of power
raised by the bill is an important
one, and in view of the conflict OF
authority it can only be definitely
settled by the Supreme Court. 1t
is our duty in the present case, un'
less clearly satisfied that Judge
Shipley was wrong, to follow the /
law as established in this circuit in
the most learned and exhaustive
opinion to be found on the subject.
The demurrer to the bill is sustain
ed and the bill dismissed